The findings of the Research Institute on Secondary Education Reform for Youth with Disabilities (RISER) was the teleconference from NCSET that was selected for this report. The presenters at this teleconference were Cheryl Hanley-Maxwell, Ph.D. and Bruce King, Ph.D. Dr. Maxwell is a professor and chairperson in the Department of Rehabilitation Psychology and Special Education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Co-Director of the Research Institute on Secondary Education Reform (RISER). Dr. King is a research scientist with the Wisconsin Center for Educational Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and principal investigator for (RISER). The principal research question for this study was "Could Authentic Achievement be used to restructure school and classroom settings in order to allow students to learn together and to be successful beyond school?" After looking for 18 months they were able to find two high schools that met their criteria, and another two that had aspects in their schools or classrooms that met the criteria. The two criteria that had to be met were that the schools used authentic instruction and there had to be value beyond school in the instructional component. They were also looking for schools that had strong professional communities and extensive external supports. The first high school they selected was a 7-12 school located in an urban setting. The school is 100% inclusive and uses an interdisciplinary curriculum. Requirements for graduation include a portfolio, graduation exhibition and service-learning internships of all students. The study focused on students in grades 9-12. The second school was set in a suburban/rural setting with grades 9-12. They use an interdisciplinary framework across grade levels and the school is 100% inclusive. They also have a service-learning requirement, completion of a portfolio, and an exhibit. The third school is a rural professional development school that has a working relationship with a local university. All students have personal learning plans that coordinate their school plan to life after graduation. These plans are similar to the special education transition plans. This school has varying degrees of inclusion with most of the inclusion classes being on the lower track. The fourth school was a small city school, grades 9-12. What set this school apart from the rest is that it had several academic courses team-taught by regular and special education teachers and the special education teachers were truly equal members of the team. Twenty eight percent of the students with disabilities were wholly included in some courses, unless they had sever disabilities in which case they were in separate classes. All Freshmen with disabilities are required to take a study skills self-advocacy course. The study looked at these four schools for three to four years and came up with 11 lessons that they learned from their observations, interviews with teachers, students and parents surveys and records review. The first lesson they learned is that inclusion can support high academic standards for all students. This is a frequent argument that is brought up when schools are discussing inclusion, but this study found that if authentic teaching and assessment are taking place high standards can be achieved for all. When schools provide instruction and assessment tasks of high intellectual quality, students with and without disabilities preform higher than when provided tasks of low authenticity. This was the second lesson they learned. They discovered that students with disabilities, when given tasks of high intellectual quality did better than kids without disabilities in classes with low levels of authentic instruction. So, the quality of instruction and the quality of assessment is very important in the achievement level of students with disabilities. The third lesson is that internal school-wide universal design elements can support authentic intellectual work and inclusion. The three elements of universal design are: negotiation with the advisor on the task elements and the targets of completion, repeated opportunities for feedback and a common process and experience for all students. External standards appear to have no meaningful influence on authenticity or equity. This is the fourth finding. It is interesting to note that while the use of high-stake assessment increase the likelihood that students with disabilities are included in relevant instruction, the level of instruction changes and the quality of authenticity drops dramatically. When compared with other schools nationwide, students without disabilities and students with mild to moderate disabilities appeared to have better school outcomes. The sixth finding found this to be true in the areas of attending post-secondary education and participation in social activities and community groups. Students with disabilities had higher rates of enrollment in post secondary institutions. The eighth finding demonstrated that these schools also incorporate career development, self-determination and post school planning for all students. These aspects are part of the fiber of the community of these schools. Former students when interviewed reported that they valued these experiences and learning opportunities. The ninth lesson, stated simply, is a school needs to have a commitment to the specific goals and to inclusion in order to have both inclusion and high degrees of authenticity. This is closely related to the 10th finding which is general education teachers and special education teachers need ongoing support to help them work collaboratively. Teachers must have time to work together to develop high quality instruction that works for everyone while maintaining high levels of authenticity. Administrators must support the efforts of the teacher to collaborate and must insure that the teachers have ample time in which to do so. And the last lesson was that these school used planning and problem -solving groups for both teachers and students. These groups are highly valued and part of the overall structure of the school. The remainder of the article answers specific questions from the participants. The first question had to do with the issue of self determination. In three of the four schools, students were expected to do post-school plans. These were literally a transition plan that students completed for themselves. The areas covered in these plans were post-high school living arrangements, post high school employment and education training, and post high school community and citizenship. These plans had to be completed before taking Senior Institute and were continually updated and revised while in class. They had to show growth in competence and intellectual understanding as a worker, as a citizen, and as a learner. In their portfolio they had to show an understanding of what skills they possessed and what experiences they had that thy could show to employers. They were taught what voting was and how to register. They were given the tools and skills necessary to survive in the world beyond high school. Another interesting point that was brought out was that special educators were considered to be a vital part of the planning process. Teachers brought their lesson plans to their learning groups and received critical feedback on how to improve lessons and what accommodations would be need to ensure everyone would have the opportunity for success. The special educator was seen as having an important role in this process, not only for the students with disabilities but for all students. Students outcomes were based on student interests and needs. So even though everyone was held to the same high standard of learning, the way that learning was expressed was based on outcomes determined by student learning styles and preferences. Students with disabilities were shown to have learned huge amounts of information and exposed to curriculum that was very challenging. The final conclusion of this report is " the more testing you do, the less authentic the learning experience is." The test have a dramatic influence on what is taught in the classroom and how it is taught. We need to be moving away from standardized testing and toward a more authentic method of learning and assessing if we are to have successful transitions for students.
High Schools of Authentic and Inclusive Learning:
The findings of the Research Institute on Secondary Education Reform for Youth with Disabilities (RISER) was the teleconference from NCSET that was selected for this report. The presenters at this teleconference were Cheryl Hanley-Maxwell, Ph.D. and Bruce King, Ph.D. Dr. Maxwell is a professor and chairperson in the Department of Rehabilitation Psychology and Special Education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Co-Director of the Research Institute on Secondary Education Reform (RISER). Dr. King is a research scientist with the Wisconsin Center for Educational Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and principal investigator for (RISER).The principal research question for this study was "Could Authentic Achievement be used to restructure school and classroom settings in order to allow students to learn together and to be successful beyond school?" After looking for 18 months they were able to find two high schools that met their criteria, and another two that had aspects in their schools or classrooms that met the criteria. The two criteria that had to be met were that the schools used authentic instruction and there had to be value beyond school in the instructional component. They were also looking for schools that had strong professional communities and extensive external supports.
The first high school they selected was a 7-12 school located in an urban setting. The school is 100% inclusive and uses an interdisciplinary curriculum. Requirements for graduation include a portfolio, graduation exhibition and service-learning internships of all students. The study focused on students in grades 9-12.
The second school was set in a suburban/rural setting with grades 9-12. They use an interdisciplinary framework across grade levels and the school is 100% inclusive. They also have a service-learning requirement, completion of a portfolio, and an exhibit.
The third school is a rural professional development school that has a working relationship with a local university. All students have personal learning plans that coordinate their school plan to life after graduation. These plans are similar to the special education transition plans. This school has varying degrees of inclusion with most of the inclusion classes being on the lower track.
The fourth school was a small city school, grades 9-12. What set this school apart from the rest is that it had several academic courses team-taught by regular and special education teachers and the special education teachers were truly equal members of the team. Twenty eight percent of the students with disabilities were wholly included in some courses, unless they had sever disabilities in which case they were in separate classes. All Freshmen with disabilities are required to take a study skills self-advocacy course.
The study looked at these four schools for three to four years and came up with 11 lessons that they learned from their observations, interviews with teachers, students and parents surveys and records review.
The first lesson they learned is that inclusion can support high academic standards for all students. This is a frequent argument that is brought up when schools are discussing inclusion, but this study found that if authentic teaching and assessment are taking place high standards can be achieved for all.
When schools provide instruction and assessment tasks of high intellectual quality, students with and without disabilities preform higher than when provided tasks of low authenticity. This was the second lesson they learned. They discovered that students with disabilities, when given tasks of high intellectual quality did better than kids without disabilities in classes with low levels of authentic instruction. So, the quality of instruction and the quality of assessment is very important in the achievement level of students with disabilities.
The third lesson is that internal school-wide universal design elements can support authentic intellectual work and inclusion. The three elements of universal design are: negotiation with the advisor on the task elements and the targets of completion, repeated opportunities for feedback and a common process and experience for all students.
External standards appear to have no meaningful influence on authenticity or equity. This is the fourth finding. It is interesting to note that while the use of high-stake assessment increase the likelihood that students with disabilities are included in relevant instruction, the level of instruction changes and the quality of authenticity drops dramatically.
When compared with other schools nationwide, students without disabilities and students with mild to moderate disabilities appeared to have better school outcomes. The sixth finding found this to be true in the areas of attending post-secondary education and participation in social activities and community groups. Students with disabilities had higher rates of enrollment in post secondary institutions.
The eighth finding demonstrated that these schools also incorporate career development, self-determination and post school planning for all students. These aspects are part of the fiber of the community of these schools. Former students when interviewed reported that they valued these experiences and learning opportunities.
The ninth lesson, stated simply, is a school needs to have a commitment to the specific goals and to inclusion in order to have both inclusion and high degrees of authenticity. This is closely related to the 10th finding which is general education teachers and special education teachers need ongoing support to help them work collaboratively. Teachers must have time to work together to develop high quality instruction that works for everyone while maintaining high levels of authenticity. Administrators must support the efforts of the teacher to collaborate and must insure that the teachers have ample time in which to do so.
And the last lesson was that these school used planning and problem -solving groups for both teachers and students. These groups are highly valued and part of the overall structure of the school.
The remainder of the article answers specific questions from the participants. The first question had to do with the issue of self determination. In three of the four schools, students were expected to do post-school plans. These were literally a transition plan that students completed for themselves. The areas covered in these plans were post-high school living arrangements, post high school employment and education training, and post high school community and citizenship. These plans had to be completed before taking Senior Institute and were continually updated and revised while in class. They had to show growth in competence and intellectual understanding as a worker, as a citizen, and as a learner. In their portfolio they had to show an understanding of what skills they possessed and what experiences they had that thy could show to employers. They were taught what voting was and how to register. They were given the tools and skills necessary to survive in the world beyond high school.
Another interesting point that was brought out was that special educators were considered to be a vital part of the planning process. Teachers brought their lesson plans to their learning groups and received critical feedback on how to improve lessons and what accommodations would be need to ensure everyone would have the opportunity for success. The special educator was seen as having an important role in this process, not only for the students with disabilities but for all students. Students outcomes were based on student interests and needs. So even though everyone was held to the same high standard of learning, the way that learning was expressed was based on outcomes determined by student learning styles and preferences. Students with disabilities were shown to have learned huge amounts of information and exposed to curriculum that was very challenging.
The final conclusion of this report is " the more testing you do, the less authentic the learning experience is." The test have a dramatic influence on what is taught in the classroom and how it is taught. We need to be moving away from standardized testing and toward a more authentic method of learning and assessing if we are to have successful transitions for students.
Edit this page (if you have permission) | Google Docs -- Web word processing, presentations and spreadsheets.